Bridesmaids

I think it is important to admit when you make a mistake.  Let me just say that the first time I saw this film, I was pessimistic, because I imagined a really stupid comedy that I was wasting my money on.  I watched the film with this pessimism, and I let the pessimism follow me to the review below.  Let me clarify my feelings for this film as they currently are.  I now give this film 7.7/10.  I know it's not much of a leap, but this film has grown on me.  I take back what I said about the other characters not having an effect on me, I thought they were all wonderful and talented.  I absolutely love the plane ride scene. I refer to it constantly for a laugh.  But, I stick to what I said about The Hangover still being my personal favourite.  All in all, this was a funny, at times hilarious, and at other times disturbing film, which exceeded my expectations and finally gave me a prominent female cast that shows the men how its done.  So I retract my previous review.  However, it is below if you're curious.   
 
Let me just say, as funny as it was, it isn't worth the hype that's surrounding it.  To compare this film to The Hangover  is carelessness.
In my book, The Hangover reigns supreme.

Bridesmaids is about the relationship between two best friends as one of them is getting married and the other... not so much.  They deal with the hilarity and frustrations of planning a wedding, as well as the complications of feeling like your being left behind.

And now, for a more technical analysis.  Let's break this film down.  Never underestimate the power of innocent stupidity over in-your-face vulgarity.  And this is why Zack Galifinakis' character Allan, from The Hangover, will always be more funny than Melissa McCarthy's character Megan in this film.  They both play the abnormal siblings of the barely acknowledged fiancees.  McCarthy was very funny, don't get me wrong.  She played her character straight-faced and showed us her versatility in comedy and acting.  From Sookie in The Gilmore Girls, to Molly in Mike and Molly, and now to Megan?  You can't deny her talent and fearlessness.  But if you were to look at the kind of comedy she brought... you'd have to admit that it was bordering on disgusting and uncomfortable.  I mean, obviously, these are the aspects that make her funny in the first place, but personally, I prefer humour I can thoroughly enjoy without resisting the urge to cringe.

As for Kristin Wigg?  I was expecting much worse.  I was anticipating an SNL style comedy from her that she continuously brings to films.  It is these films that end up being crap.  But I am happy to say, I was pleasantly surprised.  Yes, there were some scenes that had that SNL flavour, but they were toned down so that your could actually enjoy them without feeling like they're being shoved down your throat.  She finally played a somewhat relatable character in a somewhat relatable film.  I don't think she's ever done that before, so, kudos!

All other characters were forgettable.  None of them stood out or claimed the scenes.  The men in the film played their parts, not that they had much to do in the first place.

So ultimately, I give this film 7.5/10.  Yes that's it.  It's okay, it's pretty funny, but I wouldn't see it again.  Not my kind of funny...

Something Borrowed

I had begun to hope... I should have known better.

Something Borrowed is about Rachel (played by Ginnifer Goodwin), an overworked lawyer just hitting her thirties, feeling unaccomplished and old.  In the midst of this momentary mid-life crisis, she does something completely against her character - she sleeps with her best friend's fiancee.  At first, what seems like an incredible mistake, is discovered to be the best thing she ever did.

This film contains actors Ginnifer Goodwin (as Rachel) as I stated before, John Krasinski (as Ethan, Rachel's basic conscience), Kate Hudson (as Darcy, the self-absorbed best friend) and Colin Eggelsfield (as Dex, Darcy's Fiancee).

This film had its good moments and its bad moments.  Thanks to John Krasinski and Kate Hudson, I witnessed a mere fragment of what I wanted this movie to be.

Kate Hudson played her role - dare I say it - perfectly.  I had absolutely no issues with her portrayal of Darcy, in fact, she is exactly what I imagined.  She was selfish, biased, confident, arrogant, manipulative, but then at times, alluring, loyal and enticing.  She played that best friend role us girls know all too well.  It's that role of having to have all the attention, having to always get her way and then when you think you've had just about enough, she finds a way to reel you back in.  They are seductive characters and Hudson accomplished this wonderfully.  You love to hate her in this film.

John Kransinski was not exactly what I imagined, but he trumped whatever that was in the first place.  He was demanding.  He demanded our attention to the reality of the situation.  He was straight forward, to the point, brutally honest, funny and acted as Rachel's conscience.  When he screamed, you felt his frustrations. When he acted out, you felt that he was justified.  He spoke for the audience and allowed us to live through him.  He was that much and more.

And now, to the actors that I was disappointed in.  Ginnifer Goodwin was too "goody two-shoe".  It was obnoxious because she never let go of the good/pure/innocent version of herself that contradicted everything else she did.  In the book, she begins to resent Darcy, getting really angry with her.  Sure it's petty and unreasonable, but at least it was understandable.  Suffice it to say, you don't get this version of Rachel in the film, even though it is what made her character interesting. There was no strong emotion from her, and when she finally let some of it out, it didn't seem enough.  Her anger never seemed enough and her love never seemed enough.  She wasn't enough!  I don't think this has to do with her acting - she is a good actor.  I think it has to do with the screenplay and the director.  They didn't give Rachel's character a fighting chance to justify her actions.  They left out the scenes that strengthened Rachel and Dex's relationship, so you couldn't actually sympathize with them for their actions. 

Frankly, I didn't care much about them, especially Dex.

Eggelsfield was boring.  Other than looking good, which I kind of disagree with, he just stood there.  His acting was passive, his character was passive.  He was portrayed as a spineless snake.  And the worst of it was, that even when he "redeems" himself, you still don't think he has any redeeming qualities.  He's just there to act as a thorn in Darcy and Rachel's relationship.  He wasn't a character to me, but a prop for Hudson and Goodwin's use. The most annoying scene was near the end when Dex finds out the truth about Darcy (which I won't give away).  It's appalling and he barely reacts.  In the book, he swears at her, gets really angry, screams, but in the movie he just stands there and says his line.
He was nothing like the Dex from the book. 

Ultimately, the film was okay.  There were two strong characters and two weak characters.  And because of that, I give this film 6.5/10 for not fully bringing the book to life.                

Thor

Now, this is how a superhero movie is supposed to go!  None of that Green Hornet crap...

Thor is about the god named Thor, (played by Chris Hemsworth) - the god of thunder.  The film begins with him on his home planet, as he is about to earn the crown and become king.  However, just before this can occur, a security breach acts as an interruption, making everyone sceptical and nervous. Thor gives in to his arrogance and pride, and risks his people in order to make a point.  His father (played by Anthony Hopkins) decides that his actions are immature and selfish, therefore, he is not ready to be king.  So he is cast out as a punishment, and sent to earth.  This is where he falls in love (love interest played by Natalie Portman), learns his faults and feels remorse for possibly the first time.  He makes his way back home, a better and stronger god, ready to rightfully earn his crown and destroy those trying to take it away from him. 

Chris Hemsworth, for starters, was very impressive.  He hid his Aussie accent wonderfully.  He embodied the character with all the charisma and enthusiasm that makes the role so powerful.  His physical fitness/smile wasn't bad either.  Portman, on the other hand, was not so wonderful.  She was just okay.  A definite disappointment when comparing this performance to others she's done in the past.  I really couldn't care less about her character.  As for the film in its entirety, it had its comedic moments and, for the most part, flowed well.

I only have a couple of criticisms: the hand-held camera at the beginning of the film was shaky and obnoxious, to the point where your eyes hurt a little.  Thankfully, this was only during the beginning of the film - easily forgiven.  Also at the beginning, the opening scene is partly given and then they decide to show us how the story leads up to that very scene.  Let me just say, this didn't have much impact.  Usually when this occurs, you think- oh great this is going to be interesting.  Well it wasn't.  It would have made no difference if they had just let the series of events be chronological like the rest of the film.  This is not so much a criticism as it is a random comment.  It's like the very first scene hypes you up for something above and beyond, and then makes you immediately forget it even existed.  No need to start the film with a minor let down.  Finally, as I mentioned before, the romantic element didn't really make an impression on me.  Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would watch it again. 

Sidenote: It's really exciting when they incorporate the same characters from other superhero films (like SHIELD from Iron Man).  It makes the world of the film feel extended and larger in scope.  I loved the Tony Stark reference (I thought it was hilarious).

So I give this film 8/10 for portraying an entertaining version of Thor: The God of Thunder with fresh talent.    

Looking For Richard

This film is for those who really enjoy Shakespeare, acting and the theatre.

Looking for Richard plays like a dramatic documentary about making Shakespeare more appealing to modern audiences today.  It starts out showing some interviews with random people on the street to establish a general understanding of how people view Shakespeare in our society.  And the one doing the interviewing?  Mr. Al Pacino himself.  He takes on the challenge of explaining and portraying one of Shakespeare's most difficult and most preformed plays - Richard III.  Some of the actors that appear in this film are Alec Baldwin, Kevin Spacey and Winona Ryder.  They help Al as he tries to act out some of the scenes from the play.

This film is wonderful.  It takes the art of acting to a whole different level of talent.  It brings you "backstage" so you can understand the film process, the theatrical process, and the acting process.  It gives you an inside look at certain methods of acting by allowing you to watch extremely talented actors.  It uses humour so that those who have trouble with Shakespeare are more comfortable, because they realize they aren't the only ones confused.  But most importantly, I find that they hit a special mark with this film.  The best way to put it is by quoting one of the random people they interviewed on the street.  A poor man.

Conversation between a poor man on the street and Al Pacino:

Man: "Intelligence is hooked with language.  When we speak with no feeling we get nothing out of our society.  We should speak like Shakespeare.  We should introduce Shakespeare into the academics.  You know why?  Because then the kids would have feeling."

Al:  "That's right, we have no feelings."

Man:  "That's why it's easy for us to shoot each other.  We don't feel for each other... but if we were taught to feel... we wouldn't be so violent.  Shakespeare helped us.  He did more than help us.  He instructed us."

Here's a look at the film (the beginning)- I'm not sure if it includes the conversation above

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this inspiring and humbling all at the same time.  For a poor man to be so clear and true, saying something millions of us could never understand, and having the disadvantages in life that he has - its incredible.

But let's switch focus for a moment.  Al Pacino's acting was exciting to watch.  He uses his facial features, his voice, his lips as a way to create a character and bring it to life.  I had once spoken about Colin Firth's acting as something he created with his entire body.  Al Pacino creates it with his face.  He's very operatic and strong when need be, but the next second he can be sinister, alluring and intriguing by just using his voice.  He uses these strengths to his advantage the entire film.  It's also his confidence that removes any doubt from our minds about Al's certainty.  That's why it's hilarious when he is proven wrong.  You suddenly realize, Al Pacino doesn't know everything to know about Shakespeare, let alone about the play Richard III.  This makes Pacino relatable to the audience.    

I absolutely have to give a large thumbs up to Penelope Allen who played Queen Elizabeth.  She was amazing to watch.

And now some negative remarks.  This film's week spots were simple.  There were too many scenes from the play and not enough of society's view.  There needed to be more in-depth interviews with strangers or at least trying to grasp a further understanding of why people are withdrawn from Shakespeare.  I think there were so many things that Al wanted to touch upon and make a comment on, that the film became too much and eventually became too scattered. The unity of the film deteriorated from this, and that was its downfall.   I also think if he wanted to make Shakespeare more easy to understand, he probably should have picked a less complicated play to work with.  I understand the reason he picked Richard III was because of its confusion, but I felt that maybe it was too big a task to accomplish.

So, definitely watch this film.  Don't think, don't analyze (like I do), just watch it.  Because it may not be whole, but small and seemingly insignificant parts are worth the entire thing.  I promise, the experience of watching this film will stick with you.  I give this film 8.5/10.  

*Here's the aftermath of the documentary.  After everything was filmed, the dialogue was written down and recorded.  Here it is.  The Looking for Richard script.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/looking-for-richard-script-transcript.html

Fast Five (one of many)

So cheesy, it was hilarious!  I personally like to take what is rediculous and silly in a film, and simply enjoy it for all its worth... even though it may not be worth much...

Fast Five is the fifth installment in the Fast and the Furious franchise.  As a continuation, Brian O'Conner, an ex-detective (played by Paul Walker) and his girlfirend Mia Toretto (played by Jordana Brewster), help Dominic (played by Vin Diesel) escape from his jail sentence.  All three of them end up on the run from the police as they try to figure out a way to be free.  Through all the commotion, a cast of fun-loving characters come together to help them gain their freedom.  Some other actors in this film are Ludacris, Dwayne (the rock) Johnson and Tyrese Gibson.
*They appeared in previous Fast and the Furious movies. 

"You know I like my dessert before my dinner"
"Give me the veggie's"
These lines might not sound like much, but if you watch the film, you'll understand the stupidity and hilarity in them.  It was lines like these that kept me laughing, even though they were so ridiculous they should have just left me annoyed.  Thanks to Dwayne Johnson's character, Fast Five actually kept me entertained.  It was pedictable down to the very line, not to mention, the entire film played like a cliche.  They relied heavily on their one liners.

Thinking back on it now, it felt like the movie was really 3 movies in one.  They tried to use every action dynamic possible.  They robbed a bank volt.  They broke in to a police station.  They were on the run for a large part of the film.  There was a street race.  They had one big cop after them.  They had a mobster after them.  It was so rediculous and jam-packed, the focal point started to become flustered.  But I will give the film this: there was funny conversation at times, and the team of characters had good chemistry between them.  I was happy about that.  The comedic banter was pretty good. But, at risk of sounding like a broken record, it was Dwayne Johnson who kept me from walking out of the theatre, whether he was intentionally funny or not.  And for that accomplishment, I give him a thumbs up!
It helps to have Vin Diesel to look at too... just saying.

See this film if your in the mood for a light, silly movie that is comforting in its predictability.
I give this film 5.5/10

Water for Elephants

Did I like it all that much?  Not exactly, but not for the reasons you think.

Water for Elephants is about a man named Jacob (played by Robert Pattinson), living in the 1930s during the great depression, where in the midst of bad times, he chooses to join the circus.  He meets the main attraction (played by Reese Witherspoon) who is married to August (played by Christopher Waltz)- an unpredictable, unsympathetic, and dangerous man who happens to be in charge.  Jacob, finding himself in conflict with the way the place is being run, how he feels about Reese's character, and how the animals are being treated, decides to take matters into his own hands.  

Let me just say- there is a lot about this film that stands out.  It has its good qualities and its bad qualities.  For one, it seemed deeply concerned with lighting and the power of casting shadows.  It reminded me what power lighting truly has on the appearance of a character, of a story, of an environment in a scene.  The silhouette's were something to note and the way a face could change from sensitive to rugged with just a slant of the light was impressive.  But, they were overcompensating.  For what, you might ask?  I have to say, Robert Pattinson's weaknesses as being the male lead.   

Now don't get me wrong, he wasn't all that bad.  At times he even seemed good.  But one major problem that he makes obvious time and time again- he's not comfortable.  He's not comfortable in the skin of the character he's playing.  I know this because his posture, his facial expressions, his muscles are never relaxed.  He always seems tense for attack.  But he tries so hard, you can tell.  And for that you have to give him props.  But jeeze Pattinson, flex your face muscles every now and then and stop pouting!

Okay, so let's move on from the male lead for a moment.  Reese Witherspoon.  I love her, but this film either didn't give her enough to work with or she was just not into it.  I didn't feel it from her.  She was not as strong as I know she's capable of.  I was a little disappointed.

Christopher Waltz was amazing as usual.  For all of you who don't know where he is from, he was in Inglorious Bastards and he was fabulous in that as well.  That is acting!  No one could keep up with him.  When you want to play a good versus evil dynamic and the good is supposed to win, well, you have to make the good stronger than the evil.  That just did not happen in this film.  Waltz was so far beyond the others, he made them look weak and slightly pathetic in comparison.  He put talent into perspective.

So all in all, wonderful cinematography and lighting, extremely weak screenplay, good and bad acting as well as 2 hours that felt like 3.  So what am I supposed to mark this film as?

I give this film 5.5/10 for trying so hard, but just not making memorable.     

Hanna

It was pretty good... I guess.

Hanna is about a teenage girl (played by Saoirse Ronan: the girl from The Lovely Bones/Atonement) who, for the first time, goes out in the world with the knowledge that her life will always be in danger; something her father (played by Eric Bana) tries to prepare her for.  Along the way, she learns about friendship and family.  This film plays like a thrilling chase that never truly ends.

I'm feeling indifferent about this film.  I should be clear- there was nothing blatantly wrong with it.  The acting was good, sometimes even excellent.  The music along with the fight scenes were well done (it keeps your attention and slows things down so that you could actually see the movements being done).  The shot closeups and side shots were decent, nothing really stood out in that category though.  Not that that's a big deal. 

Then, why do I feel so divided from this film?
I think I wanted more.  The plot's solution was lacking and just not fulfilling.  You leave wishing the ending was different, more explosive.  The revelations aren't as big as you hoped they would be.  I also think the movie felt a little long because not much really changes. I mean, yes the plot somewhat moves forward, but it very clearly ends right where it started.  The problem with this is, from the beginning, you can almost guess the ending, which makes the rest of the film (the middle) somewhat of a letdown.

Random Note: Cate Blanchett's forced southern accent was not consistent and would come out randomly, which took away from her character. 

Maybe I was just in a mood, I don't know.

Ultimately, I recommend this movie despite my own quarrels with it.  It is a good movie.  Eric Bana's not bad to look at either.  I give this film a 7.2/10.